& SC13-1675 Todd Zommer v. State of Florida &
160 So. 3d 368
Fla.2015Background
- Todd Zommer was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing 77-year-old Lois Corrine Robinson; he confessed multiple times and led police to bloody clothing and other physical evidence.
- Trial evidence included detailed confessions, DNA linking Zommer to bloody socks found in a dumpster, medical examiner testimony about severe neck and blunt-force injuries, and testimony about other violent offenses.
- Jury recommended death (10–2); trial court found four statutory aggravators (prior violent felony, avoid arrest, HAC, CCP) and numerous mitigators given limited weight.
- Zommer pursued direct appeal (affirmed by this Court) and then filed a Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and a habeas petition.
- Postconviction evidentiary hearing addressed ineffective-assistance claims about (1) failure to request a psychotropic-medication jury instruction and (2) failure to rehabilitate/impeach defense expert Dr. Danziger on an antisocial personality diagnosis; defense presented strategic reasons for both choices.
- The postconviction court denied relief; this Court affirmed denial of all claims and denied habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting jury instruction that Zommer’s demeanor was aided by psychotropic medication (rule 3.215) | Zommer: medication suppressed observable symptoms; jury lacked context for expert mitigation testimony, so counsel should have requested the explanatory instruction. | State: counsel reasonably strategized that the instruction would scar jurors, highlight dangerousness, and was unnecessary because competency/dependence on medication was not at issue; rule applies only when competency depends on medication. | Denied — counsel’s decision was strategic and reasonable; rule 3.215 instruction inapplicable and no prejudice shown. |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to rehabilitate/impeach Dr. Danziger after he testified to antisocial personality disorder (penalty phase) | Zommer: Danziger’s ASPD diagnosis harmed mitigation; counsel should have impeached/rebutted it. | State: presenting Danziger (only psychiatrist diagnosing bipolar) was strategic; impeaching would have risked undermining stronger mitigation testimony and opened more harmful evidence. | Denied — strategic choice, not deficient; impeachment likely counterproductive and no prejudice shown. |
| Cumulative error and other ineffective-assistance claims (habeas) | Zommer: multiple trial/appellate errors cumulatively deprived him of fair trial and reliable sentencing. | State: claims were raised and rejected on postconviction or direct appeal or are not cognizable in habeas; individual claims lack merit so no cumulative effect. | Denied — procedurally barred or without merit; no cumulative prejudice. |
| Claim that competency at execution / Eighth Amendment issues render relief available via habeas | Zommer: potential incompetency at execution and constitutional challenges to Florida’s death penalty scheme. | State: competency-at-execution claims are not ripe; constitutional challenges were raised and rejected previously and are procedurally barred or meritless. | Denied — competency claim unripe; statutory/scheme challenges barred or meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Zommer v. State, 31 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2010) (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence; summarizes facts and aggravators/mitigators)
- Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2010) (recitation of Strickland standard and mixed review of postconviction ineffective-assistance claims)
- Alston v. State, 723 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1998) (rule 3.215 instruction required only when competency depends on medication)
- Rosales v. State, 547 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (discusses jury instruction on psychotropic medication in markedly different facts)
- Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2004) (recognizes ‘‘double-edged sword’’ mitigation and counsel’s strategic choices)